Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Intact Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms

Current Status of Endoluminal Treatment of Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was proved to be effective in thoracic descending aortic aneurysm (TDAA) repair in 1994 and approved by the FDA in 2005. Since then, TEVAR has become the first-line, recommended treatment for intact or ruptured DTAA or as a bridge to definitive open surgical repair in connective tissue disease. TEVAR has decreased perioperative morbidity and mortality compared to open surgery due to the lack of thoracotomy, aortic cross-clamping and left heart bypass. Improvement in materials, manufacturing and device delivery systems have allowed for the expansion of indications. Thoughtful and accurate pre-procedure planning is the hallmark of successful TEVAR. Familiarization and adherence to the instructions for use for an aortic device will give the best possible chance of success.

False lumen embolization as a rescue technique in the setting of acute and chronic dissecting aneurysms as adjunct to thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Complicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is a life-threatening condition requiring surgical intervention. One such complication in the acute or chronic setting is aneurysmal degeneration. The dissected aortic wall is weakened, and the pressures in the false lumen are often high. In the past decade, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the treatment of choice for TBAD. TEVAR can be complicated by lack of false lumen thrombosis, increasing the risk of death. We present three cases of TBAD with patent false lumens after TEVAR that were treated by false lumen coil embolization.

The year in cardiology: aorta and peripheral circulation

Collapse

Improved midterm outcomes after endovascular repair of nontraumatic descending thoracic aortic rupture compared with open surgery

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become first-line treatment for descending thoracic aortic rupture (DTAR), but its midterm and long-term outcomes remain undescribed. This study evaluated whether TEVAR would improve midterm outcomes of nontraumatic DTAR relative to open surgical repair (OSR).

METHODS

Between December 1999 and October 2018, 118 patients with DTAR were treated with either OSR (n = 39) or TEVAR (n = 79) at a single center. Primary end points were 30-day and long-term all-cause mortalities. Secondary end points included stroke, permanent spinal cord ischemia (SCI), prolonged ventilation support or tracheostomy, permanent hemodialysis, and aortic reintervention.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower with TEVAR (OSR, 38.5%; TEVAR, 16.5%; P = .01). Stroke (15.6% vs 3.8%; P = .03), permanent SCI (15.6% vs 2.5%; P = .02), prolonged ventilation (30.8% vs 8.9%; P = .002), and tracheostomy (12.8% vs 2.5%; P = .04) were significantly lower after TEVAR than OSR. Need for hemodialysis trended higher after OSR (12.8% vs 5.1%; P = .2). Mean follow ups were 1048 ± 1591 days for OSR group and 828 ± 1258 days for TEVAR. All-cause mortality at last follow-up was significantly lower after TEVAR than OSR (35.4% vs 66.7%; P = .001). Aortic reintervention was required more frequently within 30 days after TEVAR (15.2% vs 2.6%; P = .06). By multivariate analysis, TAAA was an independent predictor for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR improves both early and midterm outcomes of DTAR relative to OSR. TAAA was a predictor of mortality. Endovascular approach to DTAR may provide the greatest chance at survival.

Are We There Yet? Emerging Milestones in Aortic Dissection Care

See Article Reutersberg et al.